← Search

Validity in Design Science

Kai R. Larsen¹; Roman Lukyanenko²; Roland M. Mueller³; Veda C. Storey⁴; Jeffrey Parsons⁵; Debra VanderMeer⁶; Dirk S. Hovorka⁷

¹ Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, U.S.A. · ² McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA, U.S.A. · ³ Department of Business and Economics, Berlin School of Economics and Law Berlin, Germany · ⁴ J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University Atlanta, GA, U.S.A. · ⁵ Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s, NL, Canada · ⁶ College of Business Florida International University Miami Florida U.S.A · ⁷ University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney Sydney, Australia

Researchers must ensure that the claims about the knowledge produced by their work are valid. However, validity is neither well-understood nor consistently established in design science, which involves the development and evaluation of artifacts (models, methods, instantiations, and theories) to solve problems. As a result, it is challenging to demonstrate and communicate the validity of knowledge claims about artifacts. This paper defines validity in design science and derives the Design Science Validity Framework and a process model for applying it. The framework comprises three high-level claim and validity types-criterion, causal, and context-as well as validity subtypes. The framework guides researchers in integrating validity considerations into projects employing design science and contributes to the growing body of research on design science methodology. It also provides a systematic way to articulate and validate the knowledge claims of design science projects. We apply the framework to examples from existing research and then use it to demonstrate the validity of knowledge claims about the framework itself.

DOI

10.25300/misq/2024/18064

Volume

49 (4)

Pages

1267-1294

Language

en

Export

BibTeX

Sources

crossref openalex